Branick v. DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN

110 P.3d 1217, 28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2
California Supreme Court·Decided April 27, 2005·No. S132433·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

28 Cal.Rptr.3d 2 (2005)
110 P.3d 1217

BRANICK
v.
DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN.

No. S132433.

Supreme Court of California.

April 27, 2005.

Petition for review granted; issues limited

Petition for review GRANTED.

The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: If the standing limitations of Proposition 64 apply to actions under the Unfair Competition Law that were pending on November 3, 2004, may a plaintiff amend his or her complaint to substitute in or add a party that satisfies standing requirements of Business and Professions Code section 17204, as amended, and does such an amended complaint relate back to the initial complaint for statute of limitations purposes?

GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Branick v. DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN, 110 P.3d 1217, 28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2 (Cal. 2005).

110 P.3d 1217 (Branick v. DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford, Inc.
43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 148 (California Court of Appeal, 2006)
Abels v. JBC Legal Group, P.C.
227 F.R.D. 541 (N.D. California, 2005)
Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co.
369 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (N.D. California, 2005)